The host country for the Catholic World Youth Day celebration later this month is one of the least religious nations in the western world, research showed Friday.
Most Australians (52 percent) never or very seldom attend a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple for religious purposes, according to a survey by Germany’s Bertelsmann Foundation.
Only a quarter of the population described themselves as deeply religious. Meanwhile, 44 percent say religion does not play a central role in their lives. And nearly a third (28 percent) said they are not religious at all.
Moreover, nearly half of Australians (48 percent) do not partake in personal prayer, and a third (31 percent) do not believe in God or a divine power or in life after death. For half of Australians, religion is less important than family, partners, work/career, leisure time and politics.
The survey is the most extensive study done on religion in major cultures of the world. The worldwide opinion poll questioned 21,000 adults in 21 countries, finding that only four countries showed lower interest in religion than Australia – Russia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
The United States, in comparison, has a self-described religious population of 89 percent. Moreover, the majority of Americans (62 percent) consider themselves to be highly religious. Only 11 percent of Americans are not religious.
Australia’s Catholic community is the country’s largest faith group at 25 percent of the population. But the most religious are small-numbered free-churches and Pentecostal Protestants, including the Charismatic Movements.
"On the eve of World Youth Day it is interesting to note the strong religious vitality recorded amongst the nation's youth," Martin Rieger, leader of Bertelsmann Foundation's religious project, said in a statement.
"Christianity and Catholicism in Australia are not blossoming, but equally are not in danger of losing their core roots,” he said.
Pope Benedict XVI will be in Sydney to celebrate Catholic World Youth Day events, which will take place July 15-20. Hundreds of thousands of youths from Australia and around the world are expected to participate in the celebrations, which will end with a papal mass that is expected to draw up to half a million people.
The visit will be Pope Benedict XVI’s first to Australia.
RSS
Here's a good summary on baptism I posted a different article.
Paul said he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. You would think if it was as important as evangelism, he would have been sent to baptize as well.
1 Cor 1:7 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Example of being baptized with the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit poured out...), and not having received water baptism: Acts 10:39-48
Example of being baptized with water, and not having received the Holy Spirit: Acts 8:14-17
There are many examples where we are told to believe and be saved (Luke 7:50; John 3:16-18; Acts 10:39-48; Acts 16:31; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:13), that it is by grace, not a work.
1 Corinthians 6:11 speaks of the washing and renewal we have by the Holy Spirit, not water baptism (Titus 3:5).
Hebrews 10:22 speaks of having our hearts sprinkled (this is by the Holy Spirit), and our bodies cleaned (water baptism).
1 Peter 3:21-22 speaks of the water that symbolizes the baptism that saves us - that by the Holy Spirit.
21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand - with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Yes, there are instances where we are told to call on the name of the Lord (Romans 10:9-15), or confess the name of Jesus (Acts 2:21), or be baptized (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16). But there are too many instances where it is by faith that we are saved. All these have in common is faith. It is the faith that saves us, and the actions that give evidence to the faith being real.
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/more-on-water-baptism-and-whether-it-is-for-childreninfants/
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/baptism-water-or-spirit-required-or-not-is-it-for-infants/
Plus wouldn't it make sense that if water baptism were an absolute requirment for a person to be saved, that every verse of scripture that taught one how to be saved would always include this requirment as well in order to not mislead people? Plus would not every letter that went to each church include the water baptism requirement as well?
A simple ceremony but one that has significant meaning, you have repented and turned from your old life unto Christs. The Scripture does tell us that some believers received the Holy Spirit before water Baptism. John the Baptist said Jesus would baptise us with the Holy Ghost! Washed clean. A new life in Christ Jesus.
strongs numbers calls it ceremonial ablution.
someone flagged my post! grrrrr
I want to reiterate what I've said before.
I have known people in most denominations that I believe had strong faith in Christ and nothing else for salvation and recognized what the Bible said as truth and realized the teaching of the church was not necessarily in line with the word of God and lived lives consistent with belonging to Christ. Not that I matter all that much, I'm just sharing an opinion.
Of course, the RCC teaches some things wrong. I believe all denominations have strengths and weaknesses and teach (or do) some things right and some things wrong. Sometimes the denomination will hold a Biblically accurate position, but individual churches will teach things contrary to that doctrine.
We need to love each God and each other and call Christians to a right doctrinal position, based upon the word of God. Unity is a good thing, but not at the expense of what God has said - something John taught.
The question is whether one is trusting in Christ alone for salvation or not.
"A third observation might be, presented with these two undeniable historical facts, why one would gamble on believer's baptism instead of what was done by the Apostles and those that followed. "
Paul said he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. You'd think if it was as important as evangelism, he would have been sent to baptize as well.
1 Cor 1:7 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospelâ€â€not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Actually, I can and have defended the position that both infant baptism and water baptism is not effective for salvation.
Christ said one must be born again, which Christ explained that one needed to be born of water and of spirit, and then explained what that meant: to be born of water, that which comes from the mother' flesh with an infant's birth (flesh gives birth to flesh). Just as He told us what it is to be born again, Spirit give birth to spirit; that is to say to be born spiritually from the Holy Spirt. (John 3:3-6)
Christ said we need to believe to have eternal life, not mentioning baptism, in John 3:15-18. But He DID make the point that not believing condemns a person.
Please explain how an infant can believe that Christ came from God the Father.
We see that simple water baptism is insufficient, we must be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Again, water baptism followed baptism of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-16)
The Jailer and his family household believed, and only later were they baptized, note that nothing indicates infants were present. In fact, no scripture indicates infant baptism is appropriate. (Acts 16:31-33)
*I* have a household, with 5 kids living in it, none of them infants, but one is an adult. It is not true to say a household normally has infants. It IS true to say that a household normally has an infant AT ONE POINT IN TIME.
Paul said we were baptized by the Holy Spirit not water (1 Cor 12:13 ).
According to Paul, we were saved through the washing of the rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, not water (Titus 3:4-5 4)
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/baptism-water-or-spirit-required-or-not-is-it-for-infants/
"Historical writings show that infant baptism is supported even by the Apostles"
Please provide references. According to what I have read, infant baptism did not begin until the second or third century. In fact, Tertullian was apparently against it (not that I agree with his reasoning.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/earlyhistory.htm
http://www.abcog.org/magic.htm
"believer's baptism didn't make it's appearance until somewhere in the tailspin of the Protestant Reformation."
How do you explain the inconvenient truth in the Bible that Believer's were baptized after coming to believe?
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 18:8
Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.
Also, please explain how an infant is able to meet the requirement of belief in Christ for baptism?
Mark 16:15-16
15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
tallguy,
Why wasn't Jesus baptized as a baby? He was dedicated, which is scriptural. Why did He wait until He was an adult?
I think He was trying to be an example....which apparently the RCC didn't pick up on.
fullgospel, can you show us from the Bible where any of the apostles specifically endorsed the specific practice of infant baptism?
For the first 300 years of Christianity, the “Roman†Catholic Church simply did not exist. Constantine “legalized†Christianity at the edict of Milan in A.D. 313; later in A.D. 325, he called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify the empire. He believed Christianity could unite the Roman Empire, which at the time was beginning to fragment and divide. The results were anything but positive. Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so he allowed and even promoted the “Christianization†of pagan beliefs.
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized†the pagan religions, and “paganized†Christianity. One example of this is the “supremacy†of the Roman bishop; the supremacy of the Rome bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of Roman Emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman Emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.
It looks like cccccccc (now dddd) is making good on his threat to delete all of star2's and Prophet's posts.
FullGospel,
If the popes are supposed to be infallible, why have later popes contradicted previous ones?
http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Infallibility.html
Actually, believer's baptism is exactly what Scriptures speaks of every place it mentions baptism. It was not until the 2nd century that infant baptism began.
" interesting that infant baptism is not spoken of before the second century."
Two things are interesting to me. Historical writings show that infant baptism is supported even by the Apostles, from whom we received it. Second, believer's baptism didn't make it's appearance until somewhere in the tailspin of the Protestant Reformation.
A third observation might be, presented with these two undeniable historical facts, why one would gamble on believer's baptism instead of what was done by the Apostles and those that followed. I think it all comes down to if one realizes that Jesus founded a Church 2,000 years ago that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against and its beliefs were given a universal name (Catholic) and you were a follower of Jesus, what would your Protestant family and friends say? That's ultimately who's keeping you in an indefensible position of who's right, the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians and 33,000 other conflicting versions of "the Gospel truth."
Brothers and sisters, come home to Jesus' Church.
pope is not an authority figure in the body of Christ Jesus. He is an usurper and a leader in the rebellion of satans. You have been warned.
1Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
now i have to exercise and go to the store for some apple pie! yummers baby! alamode with ice cold milk , ty Jesus!!
infant baptism is crazy logic. I do believe lutherans do it out of just a nice thing to do, a tradition that has nothing to do with washing away there sins or saving them.
Its interesting that infant baptism is not spoken of before the second century.
http://www.saintbarbara.org/faith/sacraments/baptism/baptism.cfm
"Efforts were made to reconcile. But the Pope would not give up his claims to power, and [the Orthodox church] would not compromise [their] doctrine.
"Rome went independent. Unchecked by any kind of "peer review" by the Eastern Patriarchs, Rome's theological innovations proceeded unchecked. Within 500 years after the Great Schism, they had become so warped that they incited a revolution - the Protestant Reformation. "
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/split-Roman-Church.htm
Tallguy (continued)
The Bishop of Rome wanted to be supreme bishop. Additionally, the Roman church modified the Nicene Creed, after having agreed to not do so. "A council of Western Bishops (under Rome) changed the Nicene Creed to read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON ("Filioque" in Latin.) [The Orthodox bishops] objected that this destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity by undermining the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. It made the Holy Spirit merely a force generated by the interaction of the Father and the Son. Rome would not listen. Their faith in the Holy Spirit began to erode, and it showed in their doctrine. Unsure of the Holy Spirit's ability to guide the Church, Rome continued to falsely boost the centralized power of the Papacy. In time they came to believe the Pope to be infallible in matters of doctrine. Unsure of the Holy Spirit's ability to pray with us and for us, they elevated Mary and the Saints to almost be a means of "getting around Jesus.... In 1054 the crisis came to a head. A Papal legate, in a fit of anger over our "refusal" to acknowledge the Pope's inflated claims and warped doctrine, excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch then excommunicated the Pope."
"In the 11th century the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation of the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. There were doctrinal issues like the filioque clause and the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope involved in the split, but these were exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to that, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during periods of iconoclasm and the Photian schism."
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/split-Roman-Church.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocephaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church_organization
So, The Roman Papal Legate excommunicated the Patriarch of the Orthodx church in Constantinople because the patriarch refused to accept Rome's inflated clais to power and poor doctrine.
Thus, I stand by what I said. Rome split from the Orthodox church. Rome split from the other apostolic churches, because of their own bad doctrine and lust for power. By your logic, the Roman Catholic Church is apostate.
tallguy,
"By your logic, the Roman Catholic Church is apostate, since it split from the Orthodox church."
Just to let you know I am not making this stuff up, or re-writing history, I thought I would provide you with evidence for what I said.
1st, the definition of split I am using: "to tear or rend apart"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/split
2nd, in reference to the split of the Roman Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church. I am not Orthodox or Roman Catholic, so I may have minor details wrong. But this is based upon research I have done online. Until the bishop of Rome tried to establish a hierarchy in the church, all churches were guided by Bishops. These bishops would have the churches of a particular geographic area under their care. All bishops were considered to be the same level. In some cases, there were bishops who guided other bishops - much like a pastor of pastors. But these bishops were still at the same level of authority as all other bishops - there was no hierarchy as exists in the Roman Catholic Church. It was through agreements of the majority of bishops that major doctrinal issues were decided. The bishop of bishops of an area is known as a Partriach or an archbishop or a metropolitan. The bishop of Rome was considered to be at the same level as the patriarchs who guided churches of various regions - one among equals. The patriarch of Rome was given the honor of "first place in honor" because of its influence in the Roman Empire. But this was a honor, not a rank or position of leadership.
Whoop for National Chicken Day! July 11th!
whup
Whoop for World Youth Day!
As I've said before. If what the "Fathers" taught wasn't scriptural, then I neither accept their teachings, nor acknowlege them as patriarchs.
Prophet - Amen brother.
FullGospel - The Word of God establishes what truth is. If anyone gives a teaching that is contrary to the Word of God it is to be rejected. Infantile Baptism is not taught in the Word of God. To say that it is is to lack understanding of the Word of God. I shared why infantile baptism is not of God on this thread. I would encourage you to read it. It is a 4 part write up and begins with the Wed July 9 2008 1:43pm post.
Be like the Bereans and just don't blindly accept what some early church fathers said was true but search the scripture to see if what they say aligns itself with God's Word. If it doesn't agree then reject it, you won't lose your salvation because you do.
I like those dates of people A.D. 200+.
Let's see how the original church viewed baptism.
Acts 8:12 "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women."
What? No infants? That's sacrilege!
Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
Babies can't "gladly recieve his words", that can't even understand language.
Acts 19:4 "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
Babies do not understand repentance.
Acts 22:16: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Babies can't call on the name of the Lord.
I'm sorry. Um, what books of the Bible did those people write? And where are their opinions found in the Bible? And if baby baptisms are from God....why wasn't Jesus baptized as a baby? (He was dedicated, which is scriptural...baby baptisms are not). Why did Jesus wait until He was older?
I prefer to follow Jesus, not a man's self-made tradition.
Prophet asks Tallguy: tallguy,
Seems to me that you're the one that's ignoring the facts.
On another point, do you actually believe that baby baptisms are the way to do it?
Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
This last historical writing of the earliest Christians was 150 years before we had the Bible. The belief that we don't have to do anything (walk an aisle, say a prayer, etc.), but it's all dependent on God's grace goes all the way back. Peace, my friend.
Prophet, my friend, you say:
"But when Jesus said to his disciple while Jesus was on the cross "Behold your mother", that Catholics say that He was talking to the Church, and that Mary is mother of the Church?
Catholicism makes no sense."
Rev. 12:17 says that the devil went off to make war against the woman and her offspring, i.e. those who bear the good news of Jesus. That's all Christians. Peace.
tallguy,
Seems to me that you're the one that's ignoring the facts.
On another point, do you actually believe that baby baptisms are the way to do it?
wbmoore
???"By your logic, the Roman Catholic Church is apostate, since it split from the Orthodox church."
AS IF....
You can't start remaking history my friend.....
Tallguy1000,
Please tell me what facts you think I made up?
I'm more than happy to give you links if you would like, so you can find it for yourself. But I need a hint on what you object to, as I wrote a lot.
tallguy,
What facts are you talking about? The scriptures he quoted or his OPINION that Jesus may have spoke a number of different languages.
Please be more specific.
wbmoore, your facts are so wrong that sadly it's not even worth responding to. Where did you dig this stuff up? Did you just make it up?
lina,
Thanks for your input. I'll be sure to put that in my circular file with the rest of your comments that you post.
"Pope to Greet One of the World's Least Religious Nations" and wealthiest, happiest, best educated, creative, tolerant, and advanced. There always seems to be a heavy correlation between achievements and less religiosity. I guess its because the "devout" and the "pious" are too busy arguing over minute, unprovable, and frivolous details that separate their equally unprovable faiths. Doesn't leave much time for thinking outside the box now does it?
Tallguy1000 said
"if your not Catholic, then you are NOT part of the Holy Church that Jesus founded."
By your logic, the Roman Catholic Church is apostate, since it split from the Orthodox church.
A bit of history: the Church of Jerusalen started on the day of Pentecost. It was not until afterwards, mid 1st century, that the Church of Rome started. Rome changed the Nicene creed toward the end of the 6th century, and the Orthodox church objected. In 1054 the crisis came to a head when a Papal legate, threw a fit because the Orthodox Church refused to acknowledge the Pope's inflated claims for prominence and distorted doctrine, excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch then excommunicated the Pope.
The problem was with Rome trying to take power and having bad doctrine, they split from the Orthodox Church. The doctrine and power problems continued until they fomented the Protestant Reformation, which was an attempt to rectify the excesses, abuses, and doctrinal problems of the Church of Rome.
Maybe the RCC should invest in super soakers, fill them with holy water and start massive baptizims around the world? Then everyone who gets wet automaticly recives the Holy Spirit and get to go to heaven, RIGHT??? The battle of armageddon ends in a world wide watergun fight.
tallguy still hasn't answered my baptism questions.
Tallguy1000
We are saved through faith in Christ and nothing else. Christ did not mention a need for baptism by water when speaking of salvation.
John 3:16
16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
Ephesians 2:7-9
7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Water baptism would be a work, something you do.
If you think Christ was speaking of needing water baptism when He said we need to be born of water and spirit, you are wrong.
John 3:3-6
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."
Note, that Christ told us what it means to be born of water, that which comes from the mother's flesh with an infant's birth (flesh gives birth to flesh). This is the first birth. In the same way, Christ told us what it is to be born again, Spirit give birth to spirit; that is to say to be born spiritually from the Holy Spirt.
webmoor,
Yeah, I know that. I was just commenting on how the Catholic Church changes things around to make it fit their beliefs.
Believer, you are exactly right. He probably spoke at least three, if not four languages.
Prophet, as you know, we must take all scripture into account when dealing with a particular subject.
Notice who Christ called his mother and brothers:
Matthew 12:47-50
47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." 48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Obviously in this case, Christ was saying that people who do God's will are those He calls family.
In many other places, the scripture talks about mother in a physical sense. But on the cross, we see Christ speaking figuratively when he told John, "here is your mother". He was asking John to take care of Mary's needs, as if she were his own mother, which is exactly what John did.
John 19:25-27
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
The fact that Jesus asked John (whom He loved) to take care of Mary as if she was his own mother does not indicate she should be regarded as the mother of the church.
Why is it that when Christ told Peter what He did, that it was for Peter and him alone?
But when Jesus said to his disciple while Jesus was on the cross "Behold your mother", that Catholics say that He was talking to the Church, and that Mary is mother of the Church?
Catholicism makes no sense.
wbmoore and believer,
I agree with your assesment of the language thing. And I'm sure that with His disciples He probably spoke their native language...Hebrew.
And yes, wb, that doesn't negate what Jesus said, but apparently people (Catholics)like to use the aramaic language because it puts a spin on that word that supports their view.
While stationed in Holland we lived on the economy and met a lot of Dutch kids. In school they learned to speak four languages, French, Dutch, German, and English and many could speak all four fluently, so for any of us to assume Christ only spoke one language is quite an assumption on their part. I imagine anybody involved in the business world would have to speak at least three languages if not four, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and possibly Latin/Roman.
The English word, “pope,†comes from the Latin word, “papa,†which means “father.â€Â
But our Lord told His disciples, (and us through them), “…call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9) This had to be meant in a spiritual sense since we all have earthly fathers, while our heavenly Father is a spirit to be worshiped in spirit and truth. (John 4:24).
On another occasion, when His Apostles were disputing about leadership matters, Our Lord called them together for a disclosure of His organizational plan. He said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall NOT BE SO AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.†(Matthew 20:25-27) From this, it is clear Jesus was strongly opposed to any “prince†or “princes†exercising dominion over His flock.
Historically, it was not until the 3rd century, nearly 200 years after our Lord’s return to His heavenly throne, that a bishop of Rome – one of hundreds of independent bishops existing at that time – cited Matthew 16:18 as evidence Peter had been appointed bishop of Rome and head of the Church. This was a brazen grab for power by Calixtus 1 whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18 contradicted that of the leading theologians of his day. That grab for power died an ignominious death when Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, and others, called Calixtus 1 a “usurper.†From our vantage point 2000 years later, it is unimpeachable proof that Rome lies when it claims the office of the papacy has been in existence from the time of Peter.
Prophet, do not forget that people who are multilingual will switch between languages automatically when speaking with others who are also multilingual.
I speak English and Spanish, and I switch between English and Spanish when speaking with others who also speak both languages.
People who believe Christ is the Son of God are living stones - speaking of the faith believers have. Peter showed he was a stone (of faith) because He said Christ was the Son of God.
Even Peter Himself said believers are living stones.
1 Peter 2:5-8
YOU, also, LIKE LIVING STONES, ARE BEIING BUILT INTO A SPIRITUAL HOUSE to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through JESUS CHRIST. For in Scripture it says: "See, I LAY A STONE IN ZION, A CHOSEN AND PRECIOUS CORNERSTONE, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." Now to you who believe, THIS STONE IS PRECIOUS. But to those who do not believe, "THE STONE THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CAPSTONE, AND A STONE THAT CAUSE MEN TO STUMBLE AND A ROCK THAT MAKES THEM FALL." They stumble because they disobey the message - which is also what they were destined for.
So no, Peter is not that upon which the church was built. Christ was. It was believers of Christ being the Son of God (like Peter) who were used (as stones) to build it with.
Actually, we do not know if he spoke in Greek or Aramaic. But regardless, the word for Peter IS rock, however I disagree that Peter was the foundation upon which Christ built His church. If He did, then that would contradict the scriptures that clearly state otherwise. The only understanding of this scripture is one which is in agreement with other scriptures that state Christ is the stone upon which the church is built. See 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, Ephesians 2:19-21.
Christ warned the Jews of what would happen, that they would reject Him, and He would become the capstone.
Psalm 118:21-23
21 I will give you thanks, for you answered me; you have become my salvation. 22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; 23 the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.
Mt 21:42:43
42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes"? 43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."
Mk 12:10-12 is similar, except Vs 12 adds, "Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away."
If Peter was the foundation upon which the church was built, why would Peter saying exactly CHRIST is the foundation stone in Acts 4:8-12?
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is "the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone." 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
But you may be right about Peter being the foundation of the Church, but the church of his time was nothing near what it is today. The Catholic church has raped the early church of all its credibility.
I'd like to know how people KNOW that Jesus spoke aramaic as His language of choice. He was jewish. Yes, aramaic was a major language during his time, but it may not have been the choice of jews. If it were, then Hebrew would have gone the way of the Roman Empire. But, as we can see, hebrew is still in existence today.
So, unless people have proof that Jesus spoke aramaic, whether at all times, or sometimes (and if sometimes, when?), then enough of this talk about aramaic and greek and hebrew. And stick with what we have today.
msnchris 70,
Did the Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to write down the conversation in Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek? Where did you find the Aramaic words of Jesus you quoted in your post?
wbmoore,
Jesus didn't speak in greek or english. The correct verse is, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha, I will build my church." Peter is the English version of the Greek which is Petros, which is the aramaic version of Kepha, which is the hebrew version of Cephas.
They only spoke in Aramaic and Hebrew. Jesus only changed Abrahams name in the OT, and Simon to Peter in the new. Since Greek has feminine and male words unlike Aramaic, then the line read in greek, "You are Petros and on this Petra(since rocks are female) I will build my church." You can't call a man a female name but I'm sure some liberals would.
Also, many Protestant scholars have accepted that it is not his statement of faith since others said this too in other places of scripture, but that Peter is the Rock. He is also given the Keys which signifies prime minister(Is 22)in the hebrew culture and Jesus asked Peter three times whether he loved Him more than others and this is also a hebrew way of giving Peter forgiveness and a new charge or mission. Peter is told to tend and feed His Sheep. This is his new mission. Peter was the head of the Apostles and the Rock on which Christ established his Church. Even Luther knew that!
Opps. When I was highlighting verses, I accidently made a mistake in Matthew 16:16. The passage Mt 16:15-18 should read,
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Sorry for not checking my work close enough before posting.
Hey now. Lets not make accusations.
I have known Catholics I believe had strong faith in Christ and nothing else for salvation and recognized what the Bible said as truth and realized the teaching of the hcurch was not necessarily in line with the word of God and lived lives consistent with belonging to Christ.
Of course, the RCC teaches some things wrong. I believe all denominations have weaknesses and teach (or do) some things wrongly. Sometimes the denomination will hold a Biblically accurate position, but individual churches will teach things contrary to that doctrine. The denomination has a responsibilty to monitor such churches and correct such churches or remove them from fellowship if they fail to correct themselves.
The question for me as to whether to attend a church is whether the majority teaching coming from the pulpit and teachers is Biblically accurate and whether the preacher/elder/etc will discuss points of their sermon/teaching and acknowledge if they were missing the mark.
I love the honor the RCC has for God the Father. I love the honor the Charismatic churches have for the Holy Spirit. I love the honor the conservative Baptist and Presbyterian churches have for Jesus Son of God. I think all conservative protestant churches have a high regard for the Bible (although I do not necessairly agree with the theology of some of them). I think the RCC does well to honor Mary (although I think they take it too far). I think the denominations with a strong church heirarchy do well to avoid heresy. The problem comes in when one or a small minority can change the direction of a denomination from following the word to following human desire or the world.
jester, that'll work!! be blessed as you jest!, believer
tallguy,
are pride and arrogance a requirement to be Catholic?
believer,
i got rid of them when they came to my door, and I invited them in to join me in my weekly animal sacrifice. haven't seen them since.....
jester, your right they keep coming back and just when you think they're beginning to see the light they leave and come back with one of their higher-ups. My wife finally got to the top of the heap and they stopped coming back at all.
msnchris:
Independant Fundamental Baptists spend a lot of time learning theology through the church: early Sunday morning, and at least one evening per week. We are encouraged to study God's word daily. Our sermons are nearly 100% exegetical bible studies; we turn away from anything that imitates the world. We strive for personal and ecclesiastical separation based on the holiness of our Heavenly Father.
"Fundamentalists really love these hyped up speakers because what they lack in their depth in theology they make up for with entertainment and rah rah speeches."
What a sweeping generalization. Personally, I strongy dislike "these hyped up speakers" BECAUSE the focus is usually sensory, through emotional manipulation, rather than worship in spirit and truth. We are admonished to be holy... thus we strive for holiness, knowing, in full, our vileness in the light of Jesus. We also, with prayerful discernment, read authors who are aligned with the scripturs. Many of my brethren have been to bible colleges and seminaries which are chosen and attended with this same type of spiritual discernment.
Most importantly, we are taught from the God to love. Ultimately, it is this love of God, and love of our neighbours, that is the impetus of our evangelism.
We strongly, and sometimes vocally, stand agains the Roman Catholic Church, because of her apostasy, worldliness, and wh---dom. Jesus says to her, "I never knew you." And not just to her, but to anyone who has perverted, added to, or taken away from the scriptures. We pray continually that men and women like you will come into the truth. Christ is coming, and He is going to take away everything that is not in the light. He is King, and he will crush everything in His path: it is His. His Bride will be raptured to be with Him for eternity. I hope this clears up your grave misconception.
Brother Aaron
Of course, water Baptism is commanded, but it is an issue of obedience, not salvation. If you believe, you will obey, which is exemplified through baptism: (Mat 28:19-20)
But without faith, the obedience does not count. (Mark 16:15-16)
We see that simple water baptism is insufficient, we must be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Again, water baptism followed baptism of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-16)
The Jailer and his family household believed, and only later were they baptized, note that nothing indicates infants were present. In fact, no scripture indicates infant baptism is appropriate. (Acts 16:31-33) *I* have a household, with 5 kids living in it, none of them infants, but one is an adult. It is not true to say a household normally has infants. It IS true to say that a household normally has an infant AT ONE POINT IN TIME.
Paul said we were baptized by the Holy Spirit not water (1 Cor 12:13 ).
According to Paul, we were saved through the washing of the rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, not water (Titus 3:4-5 4)
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/baptism-water-or-spirit-required-or-not-is-it-for-infants/
In regards to whether water baptism is required for entrance into heaven,
Christ HIMSELF said we need belief in Christ for eternal life- not baptism.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.
John the Baptist said
Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
John 3:3-6
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. " 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
Note, that Christ told us what it means to be born of water, that which comes from the mother' flesh with an infant's birth (flesh gives birth to flesh). Just as He told us what it is to be born again, Spirit give birth to spirit; that is to say to be born spiritually from the Holy Spirt.
Christ said we need to believe to have eternal life, not mentioning baptism, in John 3:15-18
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
In dealing with Mary and saints acting as intercessors for people between God and Man, Scripture says otherwise.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Prayer in honor of Our Lady of Perpetual Help
O Mother of Perpetual Help! grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying.
O purest Mary! O sweetest Mary! let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O blessed Lady! to succor me whenever I call on thee; for, in all my temptations, in all my needs, I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy sacred name, Mary, Mary.
Oh, what consolation, what sweetness, what confidence, what emotion fills my soul when I utter thy sacred name, or even only think of thee! I thank the Lord for having given thee, for my good, so sweet, so powerful, so lovely a name. Let my love for thee prompt me ever to hail thee, Mother of Perpetual Help. One hundred days indulgence, once a day. (The Apparitions and Shrines of Heaven's Bright Queen, Volume 4, By William J. Walsh)
Pius IX., May 17, 1866.
Biblical Mary has never been given such power. It is a deception. Come out from such things. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Hear the word of God today.
Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth. Ps 124:8
I also have problems with the idea of a perpetual virginity for Mary.
Notice that Scripture says Joseph had no sex with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. This says she was a virgin when Jesus was born, but the word 'until' implies afterwards Joseph had sex with her.
Matthew 1:24-25
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Also, she was married and had other children later - at least James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, as well as at least two sisters.
Mark 6:3
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of JAMES, JOSEPH, JUDAS, and SIMON? Aren't HIS SISTERS here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Also, When one uses the term 'firstborn', this implies there are other children born afterwards.
Luke 2:6
While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her FIRSTBORN, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus and when she delivered Him, but she was not one afterwards; she had sex and gave birth to other children.
(Continued)
Even Peter himself says CHRIST is the ROCK upon which the church was built.
1 Peter 2:5-8
YOU, also, LIKE LIVING STONES, ARE BEIING BUILT INTO A SPIRITUAL HOUSE to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through JESUS CHRIST. For in Scripture it says: “See, I LAY A STONE IN ZION, A CHOSEN AND PRECIOUS CORNERSTONE, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.†Now to you who believe, THIS STONE IS PRECIOUS. But to those who do not believe, “THE STONE THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CAPSTONE, AND A STONE THAT CAUSE MEN TO STUMBLE AND A ROCK THAT MAKES THEM FALL.†They stumble because they disobey the message - which is also what they were destined for.
GOD laid the cornerstone in ZION. For those who believe, the STONE is precious, and is the CORNERSTONE for the SPIRITUAL HOUSE being built of LIVING STONES (people who BELIEVE) - the church! For those who do not believe, the STONE causes men to stumble, the ROCK makes them fall.
I have read that Roman Catholics believe the church was founded on Peter, as the rock upon which Christ built His church, using Mt 16:18. So lets look at what Scripture really says, following the normal hermeneutic process of looking at the greater text and then looking at other Scripture passages that relate to the subject in question.
Matthew 16:15-18
“But what about you?†he asked. “Who do you say I am?†Simon Peter answered, “You are THE CHRIST, THE STONE OF THE LIVING GOD.†Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD BY CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Notice, that it is not Simon Peter, who is the rock upon which Christ will build his church. It is Christ Himself. This lines up with other passages relating to the founding of the church.
Acts 4:10-12
then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. HE IS THE STONE YOU BUILDER REJECTED, WHICH HAS BECOME THE CAPSTONE. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.
Note, CHRIST is the CAPSTONE, the cornerstone, the foundational stone used to construct a building. Salvation is found in no one else.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the SPIRITUAL ROCK that accompanied them, and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST.
Even the people of Israel ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink, the SPIRITUAL ROCK WAS CHRIST.
Ephesians 2:19-21
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF AS THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. IN HIM THE WHOLE BUILDING IS JOINED TOGETHER AND RISES TO BECOME A HOLY TEMPLE IN THE LORD.
It is CHRIST who is the chief CORNERSTONE of the WHOLE BUILDING, a HOLY TEMPLE (the church), not Peter.
Tallguy, if you would listen to the Word of God you would see that this prayer to Mary is full of scriptural error.
Jesus told His disciples, and it applies to all believers that would follow, that after He had risen from the dead that they were to pray to God the Father in His name and God the Father would answer them. Jesus did not say nor is it taught anywhere in the Bible that believers are to pray to dead saints. To do so would be a sin.
To pray to Mary is not scriptural and the content of the prayer to her is not scriptural either. Wilderness1 has already pointed out a few of the errors.
Amen Wilderness, I'm glad to see you paying attention to our beloved mother! This is wonderful, keep it up! Through this may your love and respect for her continue to Grow!
PRAYER TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN
(By St. Bernardine of Siena.)
What shall I say, O Mary, that is worthy of thee! Thou
art the gate of heaven, the glory of mankind, the sovereign of angels, the terror of demons, the refuge of sinners, the mirror or purity, the source of grace, the treasury of celestial gifts, the consoler of the poor, the joy of the humble, the support of the elect, the guide of travelers, the port of the shipwrecked, the shield of combatants, the mother of orphans, the stay of widows, the advocate of penitents, the cure of the sick, the model of the just, the hope and the glory of Christians, the seal and mark of true Catholics. Amen. (The Apparitions and Shrines of Heaven's Bright Queen, Volume 4, By William J. Walsh)
Mary, the shield of combatants? Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. (Pr 30:5)
Mary, terror of demons? And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. (Luke 10:17)
Mary has never been given such power as we see in the above prayer. Such praying should never be found in the body of Christ! Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
righty-ooo...
i'll be prayin.
I'm gonna go visit a couple Brothers who are having some physical problems. Be praying for them. One of them had an accident a few years back and has had constant nerve pain. They've done what they can, but they can't make the pain stop. They've done a number of surgeries. It's keeping him from being able to work or anything.
My other Brother just had emergency surgery to have some prostate cancer removed. And he has to have some kind of chemo or radiation therapy.
I would appreciate all your prayers for our brothers.
but they're weird. if you open the door to talk to them...they keep coming back over and over and over. like a little puppy that found a new friend.
Jester, you make me laugh.
and they're house-trained too.
Jehovah's are a lot of fun to play with when they come to my house.
Um....no. I don't let them in my house.
proph,
you have many atheists pee on your carpet?
when i first saw the title of this article, i thought he was coming to America. boy was i wrong....
hahaha, that's funny. But that is typical atheist behavior.
Are we not being a bit sacrilegist here?
because he growls at me and pees on my carpet.
star,
I hope that wasn't too over the top.
Why do you say that?
i swear my dog is an atheist.
Prophet - doggie baptism? You're just too funny!
I heard there are people who believe animals can get saved.
Let's have a doggie baptism!!!
We've got seniors evangelism, teen evangelism, children evangelism, inner-city evangelism, work place evangelism....now we need to train up people to to baby evangelism.
Romans 10:13-14
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"
I haven't heard a baby call upon the name of the Lord yet.
And in verses 9 and 10 it says
"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
Again, I have never heard a baby confess the Lord Jesus yet.
I'm still wondering where in the Bible it says to baptize babies? I've tried witnessing to a few, but I'm not sure if they fully grasped the concept of salvation.
But the Bible does mention numerous times about dedicating babies.
I think I'll stick with what the Bible says, not what people say.
tallguy,
Yes I am. Actually, I'm a son of God, which trumps the "holy church".
Tallguy1000
Thank you for responding. I disagree with your view of salvation. I still maintain that it is not scriptural. I gave you a 4 part explanation below as to why. Have you read and considered it?
Briefly no man can come to Jesus for salvation unless God through the Holy Ghost is drawing them. God draws you when He wants to not when you want Him too. He will convict your heart that you are sinner, in need of a Savior and that Savior is Jesus Christ.
John 1:12-13 says that you cannot become a child of God by being born into a Christian family (by blood), not by your parents wanting that for you by having you baptized as a baby (by the will of man, and not because you think it is a good idea or your Chruch requires you to confirm the faith your parents willed for you (will of the flesh). You can only be born-again when God decides (will of God). He does that through dealing with your heart that you are a sinner condemned before God, deserving of eternal punishment, that Jesus died for your sins to satisfy God's judgment against your sins, and that He rose from the dead. If you accept and want what Jesus did for you, then you turn to Him in prayer asking Him from your heart to forgive you of your sins, come live in your heart, and be the Lord of your life. Salvation by any other method is not salvation.
Star2
Thankfully my parents had the wisdom and enough love for me to baptize me as a child. They brought me into the Body of Christ and had me transformed into a child of God at the tender age of 5 days old. It can’t get much better than that. That's when I was saved!
We are born of the flesh, and because of Adam we are born with Original Sin. In Baptism we are born again of water and the Spirit.
Jn 3, "through baptism we may enter the Kingdom of God". From Jn 6:63 "the Spirit gives life". When a child is born, it is born into the flesh, and we are told the flesh is of no avail.
Infants need to be baptized just like anyone else so that they can be in Christ, so that they can become children of God, to that they can become members of the body of Christ, so that they can be granted eternal life. So that they are saved! Why would anyone want to deny this to their children?
Acts 2-
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
From Acts 16, Lydia had her household baptized. From 1 Corinthians 16 "I baptized the household of Stephanas also". Households usually contain infants and children.
You can't deny that scripture urges us to baptize our children as infants.
In Christ...<><...
Hey Prophet, if your not Catholic, then you are NOT part of the Holy Church that Jesus founded. There is no getting around the words that Jesus spoke of in Matt Ch 16 starting at vs 18. Think about it, re-read it until you understand it, pray about it, submit to it. Jesus did not build His Church's upon Peter, rather he built His Church. Any so called "church" beyond what Jesus founded is a man made institution. Please obey Jesus, be part of His body, His bride.
Hey tallguy,
I'm a member of the Church that Jesus instituted, and I'm not even Catholic. Yes, the RCC promotes non-scriptural teachings.
Tallguy1000 - Do I work? I am semi-retired at the moment.
Tallguy1000 - Are you going to answer my 1:38pm question?
You are right Tallguy1000 I can not come convince you of the errors in the teachings and practices of the RCC but God can. I preach, Jesus convicts.
Star2, the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church are not heretical. The Holy Catholic Church is the one and only Church that Jesus founded 2000 years ago, and you'll notice it still stands as He said it would. Mt16:18 "and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it", and Star2 neither will you. Quit being a Saul.
Don't you have a job?
Tallguy1000
infantile salvation and baptizism
Part 1
Nowhere in scripture will you find a person being baptized that has not first decided to repent and obey God.
An infant or a child who does not know the difference between right and wrong cannot make such a decision. No adult can make that decision for them either. Baptism will not save the infant because it is merely an act of obedience to God after one believes and receives Jesus.
John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
It is clear from these verses that to become a child of God one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. A person does not and can not become a child of God because he was born into a Christian family (born of blood), or that he decided apart from God that it would be a good thing (will of the flesh) or that someone else, like his parents, decided for him (will of man).
Tallguy1000
Part 2
When the mother/parents brought their children to Jesus all He did was bless the children (Mark 10:16). His teaching was that if we as adults or older children do not humble ourselves as a little child then we cannot be saved.
Little children are trusting and they believe what you say without questioning you. For example, if you have a child on a table and you tell him to jump and you will catch him, then he will believe you and jump because he trusts you. That is how we are to be with what the Lord says. If the Lord says something, we don't question it, we act on it because we believe Him in what He says and we trust Him to keep His Word.
Jesus never implied that a young child could be saved without God moving on him for salvation. If He did, then that would have violated His other teachings.
Scripture indicated that if an infant or a young child who does not know the difference between right and wrong dies then he is protected from God's judgment and they go to Heaven. King David's baby that he had from an adulterous affair that died is an example of an infant that went to Heaven(1 Sam 12:23).
Tallguy1000
Part 3
But when the child is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong then he is old enough to know that God is real, that he is a sinner in need of a Savior, and that Savior is Jesus Christ. He is old enough to make a decision for Jesus by accepting what Jesus did for him, that Jesus died on the cross to pay for his sins so he could be forgiven and have eternal life.
As with an older child or an adult so is with a younger child who knows the difference between right and wrong, a sinner's salvation experience is not legitamite unless God the Father draws the sinner to Jesus. A person can becomes a child of God when he is drawn to Jesus by the will of God (John 6:44). When God draws a person to Jesus He is going to convict that person's heart that he is a sinner, in need of a Savior, and that Savior is Jesus Christ. If that person chooses to receive Jesus as his savior and calls upon Him with his mouth in prayer for salvation then he will be saved.
Romans 10:9-10,13
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness: and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Once a person believes from his heart and calls on the name of the Lord for salvation then the person is to be baptized. Baptizism is an act that God wants us to do and we do it as an act of obedience. Obeying God in what He wants you to do produces a clear conscious before God. Disobedience does not.
Tallguy1000
Part 4
In regard to the Philipian jailor and his household being saved (Acts 16:30-34): The entire household was not saved because the father was saved, they were all saved because they all believe the gospel that Paul and Silas preached unto them (Acts 16:32). After they all believed then they were all baptized (Acts 16:33).
Scripture is very plain that each individual must make his/her own decision to receive Jesus as Savior and Lord after the Lord convicts their heart. The teachings of scripture in one area cannot contradict the teaching in another area. So with Lydia's household, they all believed after they heard the gospel much like the Philipian jailor's household did. They didn't all get saved because Lydia got saved.
Baptizing an infant will not impart salvation to that infant. If that child should die before he is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong then he will go to Heaven (1 Sam 12:23).
Infantile baptizism also will not purge or remove original sin from a child's life. We are all born into sin. We all have a sin nature that we must deal with until the day we die. Baptizism does not remove our sin nature from us.
When we become born again by the Spirit of God through the regeneration of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5) we are given a new nature created after God's nature in righteousness and true holiness (Eph 4:24). We can decide to live in obedience to our new nature which results in righteousness unto holiness, or we can choose to obey our sin nature which results in death (Romans 6:16,19).
Tallguy1000
Re: Salvation
A lost person becomes born again of the Spirit of God when that person hears that he/she (hereafter refered to as he) is a sinner deserving of eternal damnation, that Jesus paid for his sins by dying on the cross for him, that God raised Jesus from the dead showing His power over death, accepts what Jesus did for him, turns to God in prayer confessing to God that he is a sinner, asking God to forgive him of his sins because of what Jesus did for him, asks Jesus to come live in his heart, and be the Lord (boss) of his life.
One of the evidences that a person has truly been born of the Spirit of God is that the believer has a changed life; he is no longer the same person (2 Cor 5:17).
QUESTION: Tallguy1000, have you ever really been born-again by the Spirit of God through conviction in your heart that you were a sinner in need of a savior and that Savior was Jesus Christ?
Or did you become 'saved' when your parent(s) had you baptized as an infant and then later in life you confirmed your 'belief'?
Sorry Tallguy1000, I will always contend earnestly for the faith by speaking out against the heretical teachings of the RCC and other who hold false doctrine.
Oh Star2, stop it already. It's the same thing with you, and sadly you don't know honestly what you are talking about. All I ask before you go on ranting this way is please stop and take the time to read Catholic theology to try and understand that everything the Catholic Church teaches can be backed up by scripture. Take the time to investigate, you will be surprised. In the meanwhile, please leave the Catholics alone, we are Christian more completely then you are. Like you, our salvation is assured through grace and faith in Jesus. Don't worry so much about us. If you really want to be a hero, please take your rant to Saudia Arabia or Egypt, and preach it there sister. In Christ...<><..
Anyone who has been born-again by the Spirit of God with the evidence of a changed life is royality. Mary is not above them.
1 Peter 2:9 - "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;"
Mary doesn't interceed for no one. Scriptures says that when you die and go to heaven your labour ceases (Rev 14:13).
Mary does not posses the ability to hear and respond to millions of people praying to her at once. Only God can do that.
Praying to Mary is idolatry. Behind every idol is a demon. The apparitions of Mary is nothing more than a demon. That devil is a sly fox alright. He'll do anything to get you to disobey God.
There is no salvation in the Catholic Church (includes the Orthodox churches and the Coptic Chruches).
RCC heresy:
infantile baptism - salvation by man
confirmation - salvation in the flesh
praying to Mary - idolatry
praying rosary - repetitious praying, Jesus said don't do
Pope's title of Holy Father - blaspheme, title belongs to God and God alone
Priests takes on title of Father - Jesus said don't call any one Father for you have only one Father, that which is in heaven
RCC Master Teacher - No one is your Master teacher except Jesus
RCC Rabbi - Only Christ is your master (Lord)
Virgin Mary (Perpetual) - Mary had relations with her husband Jospeh preoducing children after Jesus was born
Virign Mary (sinless) - Mary confessed she needed a savior, scripture says, "for all have sinned..." Rom 3:23
Mary, (Mother) - Jesus gave her no special place in the Kingdom of God above any other believer who does the will of God. Jesus said that whoever does the will of God is His mother, brother, and sister.
The list goes on.
FullGospel-
No Catholic has ever told me that Mary was their savior, that's not what I was eluding to.
Jesus is the only intercessor to God the Father, not Mary nor the Pope.
Believer,
My pleasure. My thoughts on this topic come from being a former Protestant pastor. I think on one hand some Catholics in the vocal minority take her honor and veneration to far and I also equally feel to many Protestants don't give her enough due credit and honor much like what you said. Somewhere in the middle is good for me.
Jesus, not Mary, is my savior. "I rejoice in God my savior"...said Mary.
Apparition to Bernadetta Soubirous
Lourdes, France
"...her [Bernadetta] last words were: 'Holy Mary, Mother of God.' These died on her lips as her spirit fled." [End quote from The Apparitions and Shrines of Heaven's Bright Queen, Volume 4, by William J. Walsh]
Bernadetta's last words were sad words indeed.
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (Lk 23:46)
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: (Phil 1:23)
chris, thanks for your response. My sense is still that many Catholics inadvertently raise Mary to a place of honor that if she were able would tell them is not appropriate for here to have. But I do realize that some if not many in other denominations do not give her the respect she is do, my sense is that some of that is in response to their being opposed to Roman Catholicism.
There have many apparitions of Mary, but very few have been authorized as authentic.
I would encourage you to read some articles by Catholic writers about Lourdes and Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc. In the messages that Mary gave through the appartitions, the focus was always on Jesus.
Mary bore the Word of God into the world and she still intercedes for us today as our faithful mother. She loves all her son's children and appears to us this way to encourage all of us to be baptized and have a personal relationship with her Son.
Believer,
When I was Protestant I did not understand the difference between veneration(Hyper dulia) of Mary and worship or adoration(Latria). You should read what St. Augustine wrote on these topics to clarify your cultural misunderstanding.
Kneeling in front of a statue of Mary is not worship. It is proper still today to kneel in front of any King or Queen or Royalty. Our Mary is the Queen since her son was the King. You must truly study hebrew culture to understand how early Christianity adopted Jewish cultural practices and still does today since the original Church was made up of ethnic jews.
No Catholic, ignorant or not, would ever say Mary is their Savior.
It is important to note that a year ago 3000 people from a extreme group who wanted to elevate Mary to an equal role to Jesus was formally excommunicated by the Pope. They wanted to worship Mary and they believed that Mary was equally important, which any faithful Catholic will reject. This group had been watched for quite a few years, and then finally excommunicated. Many bishops wrote to them and told them that their veneration crossed the line into worship that is alone due to God.
Let's be honest here guys, Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mary Queen of the Rosary. I can look through my mom's pile of holy cards and find Prayers of Adoration to the Blessed Virgin. I'm not saying all Catholics believe in Mary as Co-Redemtrix, excuse my spelling, but there are quite a few who would love and have tried to raise her to that position. But please don't say Catholics do not worship and as a minimum give adoration to Mary because many do. I mean any time there is a possible new sighting of Mary, Catholics flock in droves to see it. This is not an issue of right or wrong it's an issue of reality in the life of many Catholics.
FullGospel -
The author said what he meant, there's no bias there.
Jesus is the way, not Mary.
Hey Gsus, if anyone told you that Catholics think Mary is the savior, they've misled you, my friend. Catholics follow Scripture: "it is no longer I, but Christ, who lives in me; honor thy father and thy mother; all generations will call me blessed." We don't call Mary a savior or worship her. Exhale.
We Catholics, Orthodox and many Anglicans and Methodists love and honor the Virgin Mary. She is the Mother of Jesus and therefore the Mother of the Church.
Sorry if people can't see the difference from love and honor versus adoration and worship. Worship is only due to God. We must honor and love all Saints who have done God's will and have died in His friendship, especially the best Christian example who ever lived....Mary. Mary was the first to receive the Word, she was the first to say "Yes" to Jesus and have the most profound personal relationship with Jesus.
We will never be shy of proclaiming our love for the Mother of the Christ!
Pope Asks Whole Church to Participate in Youth Day
Finally, he reflected briefly on the two symbols of WYD, which are always present in these events: the young people's cross and an icon of the Virgin Mary.
"In past months, the 'young people's cross' has been taken all over Oceania and in Sydney it will be once again a silent witness of the pact of alliance between the Lord Jesus Christ and the new generations," he said. Along with the Cross, the "icon of the Virgin Mary accompanies the World Youth Days. We entrust to her maternal protection this trip to Australia and the meeting with young people in Sydney." (Zenit.org)
Icon of the Virgin Mary? Entrust to her maternal protection? Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? May the youth be set free from Rome's Marian idolatry.
For thou art my hope, O Lord GOD: thou art my trust from my youth. (Ps 71:5)
I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. (Ps 91:2 )
""Christianity and Catholicism in Australia are not blossoming..."
FullGospel -
The author said what he meant, there's no bias there.
Jesus is the way, not Mary.
Who flagged Wilderness1? Why not refute what he says instead of flagging him?
Catholicism IS Christianity. There's a bit of bias from this author.
May Benedict 16th be a good prime minister to Jesus' Church and through the Holy Spirit, bring many into a life-changing encounter with Jesus Christ.
Hey msnchris70. Hven't seen you in quite awhile. Hope all is well with you.
May the Pope bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to this nation starved of the one Truth who is Jesus Christ.
May all Christians renew their baptismal vow and preach the gospel to all those who do not have a personal relationship with Christ.